Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/625

 to the later idealisation of the conquest of Canaan; there is no evidence that Judah ever went to Shiloh, and none of a military hegemony of that tribe over the others, or of a subjugation of 'peoples' ($10bβ$), until the time of David, by which time Shiloh had ceased to be the central sanctuary. Even if (with Di.) we abandon the reference to Jos. 18, and take the sense to be merely that Judah will remain in full warlike activity till it has conquered its own territory, it is difficult to see (as Di. himself acknowledges) how that consummation could be expressed by a coming to Shiloh.—(c) The translation 'As long as one comes to Shiloh,' i.e. for ever (Hitz. Tu.), gives a sense to which is barely defensible.—(ii.) Those which follow the text underlying all ancient Vns. except V, viz. = . (a) 'Until he comes to that which is his' (Orelli, Br.) involves an improbable use of the acc.; and it is not easy to see how Judah's coming to his own could be the signal for the cessation of any prerogatives previously enjoyed by him.—(b) 'Until that which is his shall come' is a legitimate rendering; but the thought is open to the same objection as ii. (a).—(c). The most noteworthy of this group of interpretations is: 'Until he come whose' [it is], sc. the sceptre, the kingdom, the right, etc.; i.e. the Messiah. This has the support not only of nearly all Vns., but of Ezk. 21$32$ (where, however, the subj. is expressed). The omission of the subj. is a serious syntactic difficulty; and this, added to the questionable use of in an early and Judæan passage, makes this widely accepted interpretation extremely precarious. The first objection would be removed if (after a suggestion of We. [see Comp.$2$ 320]) we could delete the following as a gloss, and read 'Until he come whose is the obedience,' etc. But metrical considerations preclude this, as well as the more drastic excision of as a gloss on (ib. 321).—Of conjectural emendations the only one that calls for notice is that of Ba. (followed by Gressmann), who reads : 'Until his ruler (i.e. the Messiah) come.'

With regard to the general scope of the v., the question recurs, whether the term fixed by $10bβ$ is historic or ideal; whether, in other words, it is a prophecy of the Davidic kingdom or of a future Messiah. (1) The tendency of recent scholars has been to regard v.$10$ as Messianic, but interpolated (We. Sta. Di. Ho. Dri. al.), on the double ground that it breaks the connexion between $9$ and $11$, and that the idea of a personal Messiah is not older than the 8th cent. But (apart from the question whether the subj. in $11f.$ be Judah or the Messiah) the connexion between $9$ and $11$ is in any case not so obvious as to justify the removal of $10$; and the assumption that the figure of the Messiah is a creation of the literary Prophets is based more on our ignorance of the early religious conceptions of the Israelites than on positive evidence. (2) Accordingly, Gu. (followed by Gressmann, Ursprung d. Isr.-Jüd. Eschatologie, 263) finds in the passage proof of a pre-prophetic eschatology, which looked forward to the advent of a Ruler who should found a world-empire, the point of the oracle being that till that great event Judah's dominion should not pass away. It is difficult, however, to believe that the climax of a blessing on Judah is the expectation of a world-ruler who takes the sceptre out of Judah's hands; and though a reference to a